1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the bankruptcy trustee B, who is the transferor of the claim indicated in the annexed sheet (hereinafter “the claim of this case”), filed a lawsuit against the principal debtor C and the defendant, who is the guarantor, to claim the claim of this case (Scheon District Court Decision 2000Na366). The above court sentenced the judgment that “the defendant shall jointly and severally with C, pay to B to the bankruptcy trustee of the YFFF cooperative B the amount of KRW 19,991,081 and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from September 21, 1998 to the date of full payment. The appeal of the principal debtor C (Scheon District Court 200Na4672) against the above judgment, which became final and conclusive, and the transferee of the above claim of this case may request for the collection order against the principal debtor C and the debtor C208Da567284, May 28, 1992.

3. A lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exists in a case where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, and a claim based on a final judgment has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.

Furthermore, an interruption of prescription against the principal obligor shall also be effective as against the surety.

(Article 440 of the Civil Act). 4. However, the statute of limitations is applied for the seizure and collection order against the principal debtor before ten years elapse from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.